Inclusion versus Exclusion

• Technology has, for a large segment of society, provided better and easier access for consumers, while there have been consequences on another portion of society. 
  
  On the other hand, we have seen many governments, companies and financial institutions that have forced consumers to access the entity through the use of its technology rather than offering any face-to-face services.  Technology has been used by financial institutions as justification to withdraw even where there are profitable branches from serving local communities.    
  
  There is an impact, a level “exclusion” or a barrier for those left behind, being those who are technologically illiterate; have cognitive impairments; disabilities; cannot afford the costs of having secure “on line” access; the costs to acquire devices; costs for subscribing to protective intrusion / malware software, etc.

Do we accept the exclusion of these members of society as simply a casualty of a growing technologically based marketplace??? Or should the marketplace bear the costs for applying technology to support the excluded with the ability to participate safely in the market place?

In the past, it would cost a consumer nothing to walk into a branch bank and carry out their transactional needs.  Now you are required to: pay the costs of buying the technology, learn how to use the technology / apps; buy the antivirus software and updates, pay for safe internet access, etc. 

And furthermore, the requirement of using technology has put consumer at much greater risk of hacking and mass fraud.

So, consumers are now expected to absorb all the costs and all the risks of being herded / channelled into an era of technology being touted as the panacea for profitable and effective management of the consumer in the marketplace.

The Internet, an open playing field with no rules:

Technology, specifically the internet, has allowed direct access by any person / company to any person with on-line access.  This direct access has allowed “start-ups” and others to easily enter the market place with less costs thereby creating opportunity for innovation, more competition and almost unlimited access to consumers.  There is little desire to have a government as a gatekeeper as to who is allowed to use the internet, as such the internet has enormously increased the level of risks to all users in the electronic marketplace exposing them to perpetual risks for fraud, identify theft and hacking. The only solution to-date seems to be a reliance on promoting consumer awareness, however, experience has taught us that awareness alone is not very affective.  Awareness alone does not work.

It is a marketplace without rules open to wide abuse and social media companies that accept little responsibility for controlling misleading or fraudulent content.

Awareness does not help those consumers that cannot afford the range of protective software and updates; or those consumers who simple decided not install the safeguards out of stupidity, or perhaps may feel confident that the financial institution is some how protecting; or those consumers who may lack the cognitive ability to recognise fraudulent attempts.   

Closing comments:

It appears to me that the law of the jungle is returning to the marketplace and forcing consumers to rely on Caveat Emptor, “buyer beware”, which does little protect the vulnerable members of society.

Because of herding consumers into inefficient market place channels, one must inquire as to what percentage of consumer are frustrated in trying to resolve complaints and issues because of the technological barriers and out of this frustration consumers simply give up.  Companies can advertise the fact they are providing technology to improve customer services but where are the facts, the data that demonstrates there is actual delivery of responsive customer service that satisfies consumers?  The barriers or obstacles discussed above are a not-so-subtle way to reduce costs of dealing with consumers and increasing levels of profits. Clearly ignorance is bliss, iIf a company does not become aware of consumers issues or of a problem, then there is nothing to fix!

We all appreciate the benefits of Technology, but do we really consider the costs to consumers who face increased risks, costs and losses; those who cannot participate in technology and face a loss of local access; are frustrated by controls and limitations used by companies to avoid reasonable and timely access by consumers.  Maybe we do consider the above consequences, but are apathetic and choose to ignore them because consumers know they do not have the power to make a difference.

One could argue that on-line consumers have the alternative to use social media to address their concerns, but aside from any matter that may get broad media attention, companies can ignore them. I also assume many consumers would not want to put personal issues / details on a public forum.

The Market Place  / Consumers Need Data:

The concerns raised have no comprehensive solution and to suggest that government would have the ability to solve these issues is not reasonable.   However there are some less intrusive measures that can be taken that can balance the power between consumers and providers of services and products while having a reasonably free marketplace. 

I would suggest balancing the marketplace or empowering consumers through transparency by actually giving consumers the data on which to make choices.

I am suggesting that all major retail public companies and government services are required to publish in their annual reports, customer and market place performance management data.

Data setting out customer satisfaction, on complaint and inquiries with the actual performance measures against published standards and data that would include the number of dropped calls, length of calls, response times, etc. 

If companies claim that their customers come first, then there should no objection to publishing their “excellent” performance.   This public data allows consumers to make a choice based on facts instead of being lured to a company based on persuasive marketing and advertising.  I am sure such data would be useful to the data analysts, consumer groups, the Better Business Bureau or journalists in making consumers aware of best practices as well as poor or abusive practices.